I didn’t always use Final Cut Pro, and I didn’t start using it from version 1. I was a late convert. I started out using Avid Media Composer. But I did start using it after version 3 came out. Before that I, and many other editors, begged and pleaded with the companies we worked with to use their Avids, after hours, to do our side projects. But then FCP came out, and was cheap, so we could then use it to do all of our side work. And I did use it for a lot of projects, but nothing for broadcast.

Then FCP 4.5 came out. Now it not only had external hardware for it (Targa Cinewave, Matrox RT Mac), but it also worked with DVCPRO HD natively…capture directly via firewire, at full quality. And that was the HD format that was taking the documentary world by storm. I did work on a TV series that was shot with that format. 720p 24over60. But the Avid Meridians, that the production company used at the time, didn’t edit HD. So all the tapes were converted to SD and then captured. And we were going to online with the Avid Adrenaline.

Well, the Adrenaline was Avid’s big mistake. It was slow, ploddingly so…and it was difficult to get accurate captures and outputs. And at the time we went to online…it only did 1080i. Well, all of our tapes were 720p…so we had a problem. The tapes had to be converted to 1080 and then captured…and that was a HUGE expense. The nine-episode series went $200,000 over budget. That hurt.

Then I was approached to edit a two-hour History Channel show and the producer planned on shooting DVCPRO HD with the Varicam. Well, I knew that Avid couldn’t do this. Sure, the Adrenaline had been updated, but I still was very wary. Besides, I just attended a Los Angeles Final Cut Pro Users Group meeting where they touted DVCPRO HD native workflow with FCP 4.5. So we talked to a post expert about workflow, and they highly recommended FCP 4.5 And said that we could do all we needed to do with it to deliver a broadcast show. AJA had the hardware, it was solid. We could use firewire drives…all was good. So we leapt.

And since then Final Cut Pro was my primary choice for editing. Yes, I still used Avid, but editing with Final Cut Pro was more natural to me. It seemed to think they way I thought. I was faster, able to do more effects with ease. It was the perfect tool to use for the projects I was presented with.

But it still wasn’t used in Hollywood all that much. People looked down on it…thinking it was prosumer. It did start out that way, but it made huge strides in the professional editing market. It started seeing use on the TV show “Scrubs.” Walter Murch decided to use it for COLD MOUNTAIN. More and more commercial productions and music videos were cut with FCP. It was gaining ground. But it wasn’t easy. It took a lot of effort for us to convince people that FCP was ready for broadcast, that it did a better job than Avid. That despite the low cost it was as good as Avid. In fact, if the companies went with FCP, they could save a lot of money, and still produce the high quality they were used to.

It took years of struggle, but finally FCP made in-roads, and found a home in many production companies. But there were still editors who mocked us for using FCP. And who said that Apple wasn’t serious about the NLE market. They had so many other things they paid more attention too…iPhones and iPods and iPads. They didn’t put that much effort into FCP was their argument. It was hard to believe, seeing that FCP 7 was so solid…there were more plugins and side apps made for it than any other NLE (HUGE support base)…more hardware options for FCP than any other NLE.

Then FCP X came out…and the rug was yanked out from under us. Not only did Apple release a version of FCP that didn’t meet the needs of the broadcast professional…they EOL’d (End of Life) FCP 7…the last version that DID support professional broadcast workflows. Everything the Avid guys were saying was right…Apple dumped all the professional features and made an NLE (Non-Linear Editor) for the masses. They used to use us to tout their software. Articles on their website showed how Bunim/Murray, the largest reality show company in the US, built their facility and workflows around FCP. Films edited with FCP…”Jarhead,” “Zodiak,” “The Social Network.” TV shows… They were, and always had, used broadcast and film productions to showcase FCP as a professional editing solution that is so good for Hollywood, just imagine how good it will be for your projects!

Then they release a product that is useless for all those projects. Lacking every professional feature we have come to rely on. And not only that, change the interface so drastically, professional editors would be lost. All indications point to them leaving the broadcast market and aiming at the prosumer. Why cater to 3% of your user base (according to Philip Hodgetts), when much more can be had from the people in the much larger, middle-range? People making content for the web, DVD… After all, tape is dead, according to Apple. In saying that, they have indicated how out of touch they are with professional workflows. It might not be in the majority, but it is certainly there, and will be there for YEARS to come. Avid knows this…and I highly doubt they will every remove tape capture and output from their software.

We professional editors rely on “muscle memory.” That is knowing where all the buttons, keys, menu options are when we are cutting…knowing them SO WELL that it is second nature to click on a button to do what we need done. If that one button moves, or doesn’t do what we need…that slows us down. And in our high-pressure environment, we can’t afford to be slowed down. When Avid changed the weight-lifter icon to an up arrow…the button indicating that you wanted to LIFT out a section of video…that threw us for a loop. And when they moved the SELECTION arrows to the Smart Tool bar on the left of the timeline, that caused a lot of havoc. Editors all over were furious. Their muscle memory was disrupted.

FCP X goes well beyond that. Forget everything you know about editing, and start over. Learn everything from scratch. And change the names of everything, change the way things are organized…and call it “better…an improved way of doing things.” Who’s to say it’s better? What we have worked for us…worked well. Why fix what isn’t broken? Sure, FCP X is now 64 bit, and can address more memory, and therefore is faster…people were crying for this. They got it, but in the process, a complete re-design. Adobe didn’t do that. They went 64-bit and retained the look and feel of the app. Everything is the same, well, most things. But if you used Premiere CS4, going to CS5 is easy…nothings different.

Apple says that eventually they will add back some if not all of the pro-features missing from FCP 7. But will it be too late? Avid Adrenaline was a huge debacle that caused me and many others to switch to FCP. And even when things were fixed, and Avid came out with newer hardware, and much improved software, we stayed there, because it did what we needed. Now it looks like FCP X is doing to Apple what Adrenaline did for Avid…causing professional editors to look at alternatives. And once we find them, once we get used to the working with them, will we be inclined to switch back? Switch back to a completely foreign interface? We’ll see.

And yes, we could stick with FCP 7. FCP X didn’t cause it to break. But sticking with an NLE that has no future will only go so far. There will be no further improvements to the NLE we know and have come to rely on. It is gone. So we will continue to use it while we explore options that do work the way we need to work, and will advance with technology.

Future posts will have me doing projects with Avid MC and Adobe Premiere Pro, as I test the waters to see which will work best for me. And if Apple does come out with something that will fit my workflow later…who knows, I might go back.

Time will tell.

EDIT: To be clear. I will continue to use FCP 7 as long as it does what I need. But when it won’t be able to handle a workflow need I have I will explore other options. If the next version of FCP adds the professional functionality I need… and allow for more advanced options other than included templates… then I will explore it as an option.

Comments

This reminds me of myself when I was dragged kicking and screaming from my high-pressure–but very ordered and somehow comfy–world of component digital linear editing in a high-end Abekas production house. “Look at this non-linear Avid crap! This technology’s not going anywhere. Everything has to RENDER! Who will ever want to be handcuffed by this technology? In MY suite I can set up layers and layers of effects, trigger one GPI, and have it all happen real time!”

Such was my stuffy, inflexible, stuck-in-the-present attitude. But fast-forward about 15 years. Not only did that technology “make it”; that little up-start company called Avid in time turned the post world on it’s ear–and it as well as its soon-to-be competitors unleashed a tide of capability that opened the doors for literally millions of storytellers around the world to actually make a living doing what they love and want to do. Oh, and that $350-per-hour linear suite? Long gone. Sure, it was a pain to learn the new stuff and work within it’s limitations. But 15 years down the road, with all of the unbelievable technologies accessible now at such low cost, now I can actually make a great living working from home and deliver a level of production value that competes with just about anyone. In my market, those who want to make a living doing this and have a degree of competence all make money at it. Who in the world would want to go back?

Yes, Apple screwed up bad in how they handled this. They will undoubtedly pay a price for that. They’re brilliant people who sometimes are too smart for their own good. But the last thing I want to do is let new technologies and methodologies affect me by in effect tying me down to the present as I shun them–even if the present is very good. Avid (I’ve used Media Composer for 13 years, and will continue to do so) and CS5 are very capable tools in the present; but, at least in my mind, what road Apple is traveling represents more of what the future will look like. In some ways they’ve made me kick and scream again. But having learned by now some “linear” lessons, I choose to adapt–and this time, embrace the new.

Toby Wallwork

June 24th, 2011 at 8:29 PM

This is by far the calmest, most relatable coverage of the FCP X situation that I have read. As a long time user of FCP (I still have my ver. 1 disc somewhere) I can’t help but feel very disappointed by these developments. My current projects are firmly entrenched in FCP 7 and will be for at least the next 12 months. But now I seriously have to think about what I will be using next.
Can we still make fun of Sony Vegas?

As a junior editor I had to sweat to learn the CMX 3600, but I knew it was worth it because it could do such amazing things. When the Avid came along I fell in love with its uniqueness and endured lots of headaches during the learning curve because it was a step up from the inflexibility of linear edits (even though it was still only capable of offline resolutions). Avid DS came along and combined editing and compositing and audio mixing in such cool software that I went into work on the weekends to pour thru big manuals to learn its different way of doing video. I mocked FCP for a while until I realized that I could build a bay at home and create a very powerful room that was driven by FCP and After Effects and all the wonderful support that was available. It exceeded the million dollar suite I started my career in.
I bought FCP X the other day. I explored for it several. Options I need as a professional editor were not there. It felt like start from scratch learning the CMX system. I got my refund from Apple today. I spent the day laughing to myself as I put Adobe CS5 thru its paces. It was like driving my Miata that someone had juiced up with a jet engine. And experiencing the dynamic link between PP and AE was pure heaven. I dont care if I have to learn its unique approach to doing things. It feels like what FCP 8 would have been and thats good enough for me.

AndrewK

June 24th, 2011 at 11:45 PM

Nice ‘from the heart’ piece, Shane.

Euchrow

June 25th, 2011 at 12:44 AM

Hey Shane,

I do agree that workflows shouldn’t be disrupted. But that doesn’t really count for interface changes. I mean if a button changes it really isn’t the end of the world. As a freelancer I cut on FCP or Avid. On a PC Avid, the modifier keys are not in the same place than on a Mac. Very annoying for the first 10′ because you keep hitting the wrong button. But you quickly get used to it. I had to learn FCP and Lightworks. Was swearing the first few days because it didn’t behave as my beloved Avid. But it doesn’t take long to adapt and in the end I even started to like them. Most of the gripes we have with FCPX is the workflow disruptions, not the interface changes. These changes are very welcome, and I can imagine myself being happy with the editing interface of FCPX. But I’m not happy with all the rest, and Apple really showed their true colors.

But frankly, I’m not surprised with this move and I don’t understand why so many FCP users didn’t see this coming. I mean Apple sells computers and iPhones. It only sold FCP because it really boosted Mac sales. It isn’t a company that’s into postproduction like Avid, Adobe or Autodesk is. Those companies need me as much as I need them and it shows. But with Apple it always has been more of a one way relationship. They don’t do roadmaps, good support, trial software, regular updates etc. As somebody who earns a living doing this work, you can’t afford to be at the mercy of the company that supplies your tools. And since Apple never communicates about future plans you’re at their mercy. Anyone invested in Xserve here ?

Anyway, I like Apple hardware and FCP aswell. I just don’t like their attitude. Apple screwed up for us (the so-called 3%), but not for the amateur-prosumer crowd. But they will earn much more focusing on broad market than supporting some annoying pros.

The biggest learning curve for me wasn’t the new interface but the new terminology. What we called sequences in FCP 7 are now called projects and the old concept of a project has completely disappeared. There’s no such thing as bins anymore – everything is now a collection within an event.

Andrew Karczewski

June 25th, 2011 at 6:17 AM

Thanks for the post, Shane.

I’m currently looking into Avid and Adobe as well, it will be good to be able to read both yours and Walter Biscardi’s posts as the two if you decide which NLE to move over to.

I agree with you in saying that FCPX is currently not useful as a tool for professional workflows and we all should look into other options to deliver projects to clients. I was blown away that they would/could release a editing platform with no way to send your project to other programs like Color or Pro Tools.

That said after have played around with it for several hours over the past few days I think this will be an amazing tool for editors once Apple adds XML or whatever they will call it and a way to properly monitor the “storyline”. Working in FCPX really brings all the things Phillip Hodgetts has been saying about working with metadata for the past few years into perspective. It did not take very long to adapt to the new layout and I can see it being very useful for some types of projects.

Apple seems to be the opposite of Red. With Red you think, stop telling me what you are going to do next and just deliver what you said you would, with Apple it is give us some sign so we can make intelligent business decisions about the tools that pay our mortgages. Fortunately or not both companies have a great influence on the future of our industry.

I used to edit with Avid and I had a hard time deciding if I should switch back to MC. But I think my money may be better spent on getting Resolve 8 since I don’t know if Color X will show up in the apps store one day or not.

I think, (I hope) that six months to a year from now all the 3rd party companies will be able to offer all the tools that I rely on today. Until then I’ll keep using FCP7, brush up on my Premiere CS 5.5 and keep experimenting with FCPX, but use what ever platform is needed to deliver the project that the client is paying for.

Thanks
Rich-

Kat

June 25th, 2011 at 1:42 PM

Thank you Shane for a great piece. I guess I won’t be buying that shiny new MacBook with FCP X! My question is, why does it feel like Apple is dumbing down the product? I mean, they stripped out what it is we need to make the best product possible. I am using CS5 and love it! I’m also a user of Avid (when I can get my hands on it), guess we will all wait and see as to what Apple will do next.

To be clear. I will continue to use FCP 7 as long as it does what I need. But when it won’t be able to handle a workflow need I have I will explore other options. If the next version of FCP adds the professional functionality I need… and allow for more advanced options other than included templates… then I will explore it as an option.

JimW

June 25th, 2011 at 5:58 PM

I too have been impressed with Adobe Production Suite with Premiere 5/5.5. I am also using Media 100 Suite 2. It is very powerful yet extremely easy to use. Recently updated to work with Red raw 4k files. Both work great with my AJA hardware. I will be using these two programs and Final Cut/Studio 3. My AJA ioHD is happiest with it. FCP X is definitely a wait and see. Being a one man band, project sharing is not a biggie, but gooe audio editing and color critical monitoring and high quality color correction are essential. XML export/import is also a deal breaker as well, as I am using more than one program. Hope Apple sees the light before it is too late and I only use it for YouTube.

Good write up Shane. I’m a freelance editor who works in up to a dozen different facilities each year. The past 5 years or so…they are all FCP and/or Avid. I’ve always favored (and excelled at FCP). Unfortunately it now looks like FCP will be going out the window. As you said, it may very well one day be a decent pro editor….but by that time I think most places will have long moved elsewhere. Even if a facility does decide to adopt FCP X when it’s ready for primetime, the pool of pro editors that are actually proficient at it will be small.

Avid proficiency is the safe bet moving forward. I guess it’s time for me to get back up to speed.

Tom Meegan

June 25th, 2011 at 11:31 PM

Nice piece Shane. Calm, with the perspective of time.

Eyad

June 25th, 2011 at 11:48 PM

too many people are finding themselves in this situation. So for the moment Avid and Premiere and even Lightworks are contenders, but not for the next couple of months or so until the the current batch of projects are handed in…. hopefully by then Apple will release an update or at the very least a short term roadmap of where FCP is going….. I’m glad I have these two months..

thanx for the great article Shane… all the main points in a calm and unbiased way.

Juaco

June 26th, 2011 at 2:42 AM

Fcp, avid, premier…. The most important is if I can do what I need.

Mike

June 26th, 2011 at 11:01 AM

I wonder if, assuming it gets some kind of XML output in the near future, that FCPX could be a useful offline editor. Quickly get through tons of footage and do the offline in FCPX, export XML, then do the actual final cut and prepare for online in the old FCP7 or Avid. I need to do more research to know if FCPX is, from a creative not technical standpoint, better in some way for making offline editing faster. It would take a rethink on traditional workflows, but I’m open to whatever might make the whole process faster. After my initial reaction, I want to make sure I’m not dismissing this too quick and being open minded to some benefit this software might provide. Any chance of that? If not, I’ll be very interested where you stand on Avid vs. Premiere!

Shane I respect you a lot, subscribe to the edit bay podcast, and appreciate your stock answers in the forums, but I don’t know about your post. While I understand the why-can’t-it-be-like-FCP7-but-with-upgrades complaint, Apple is clearly trying to create a NEW approach to editing. Like, fundamentally.

It’s too soon for any of us to experience the potential joys and benefits of what Apple is doing here.

Veteran editors share with me tales of editing in the old days, controlling tape decks with knobs, telling me about how decisive and certain you had to be with each edit.

“Ah, the pre-NLE days,” they say.

Maybe years from now some junior editor will look at me funny when I describe how I used to edit without metadata and keywords, “People Detection” and collapsible clips.

Cyrus, as stated, I will use FCP 7 as long as it is useful, and when it becomes not so useful, I will seek alternatives. And just because a style of editing has come out that is NEW, doesn’t make it better. I won’t be one to put my professional projects on to test that. And from what I can tell from other professionals who are using it, they don’t like it, it doesn’t do what they need. I didn’t jump ship to FCP right away…I used FCP 3 and 4.5…but, the style of editing remained the same from Avid. The 3-point editing. The way it works is the way I can grasp things…it is how I think. If new people want to use the new way, let them. There is nothing wrong with the old way (now I sound like a Moviola editor!). MIchael Khan edited most of Spielberg’s films with a moviola…right up to MINORITY REPORT. Because it worked, and he could work faster and tell the story in a way that he was comfortable with. Giving editors tools they are comfortable with does a long way to making them happy, giving them the ability to produce great work in a timely manner.

If FCP X’s styles takes things by storm…then so be it. I use that I am comfortable using.

Mike – you were speaking about FCP X being used as a good offline editor if it had XML export. Actually a better choice is the current iMovie. It has better marker tools than FCP X and has a workable XML export. We have been using it at our shop for offline edits for about a year and it had dramatically decreased the amount of time it takes to get to our first draft edit out the door. Like you suggested, it is a much better flow and story tool than a traditional NLE.

[…] if you ended up here, you already know most of the issues. If you need a refresher, check here, here, here, here, and here, and read a simple list of what it simply does not do anymore here. Or you […]

Gino Del Guercio

July 4th, 2011 at 12:36 PM

I’ve never seen so much whining in my whole life. Has anyone tried FCPX, it absolutely rips, and is stable, and it’s only two weeks old. Keep using 7 for the next 6 months and I bet by then the vast majority of these complaints will be long forgotten. I feel sorry for the hundreds of Apple engineers who worked on this project, created an amazing new product, and are getting flamed by so many editors who have never written a line of code in their life.

Gino…I tried it AFTER I wrote this. But I still don’t like it…I don’t like the interface. But none of that matters. It lacks all the tools I need to edit the type of projects I do, therefore it is useless to me. Again, like I stated in the blog post, I switched to FCP from Avid when Avid failed to provide the tools I needed to work with the material that was being shot…and failed to deliver what I needed to deliver. FCP X is now in that boat, I cannot deliver what I need to deliver with it. I will use FCP 7 for a year or tad longer, but I will be switching to an application that does what I need. NO whining…just statement of fact.

I’m disappointed in Apple, seeing that I have based a huge part of my professional career on it, and now it is useless to me. That stings.

Ira Meistrich

July 7th, 2011 at 1:27 PM

I’m an old-time professional edito, 40+ years experience. I started on film with an upright Moviola, made the transition to flatbeds, transitioned again to linear tape systems when I had to, and again to NLE when that came along. Within that world, I used Avid, Lightworks, Sphere and FCP from the first release on. Since 2004 I haven’t done any editing except on FCP. I am open to change and embrace it when it works.

FCP X doesn’t work. It may be a brilliant redesign of the edit program, it may well be the edit system of the future, but it does not work for today’s post-production world, and won’t even if it gains all the promised upgrades. If I cannot access and work with my projects and files of the past ten years, it’s a non-starter.

I love FCP 7 and will stay with it as long as I can while I weigh my choices between Avid and Adobe. But once that happens, I am gone from the Apple family, and that means not only a $299 piece of software, but everything: hardware, software, pads, phones- the whole shebang.

I do hope Apple rethinks this. There is no need to EOL FCP in order to introduce a new editing paradigm.

Sums it all up nicely, FCPX will hurt Apple long term it’s reputation is tarnished. As soon as the big broadcasters start moving away from it (awaiting BBC review) then it losses it’s appeal to the masses. It’s too expensive for it’s target Market prosumers iMovie was at the right price.
Too basic too expensive

[…] Well, the Adrenaline was Avid’s big mistake. It was slow, ploddingly so…and it was difficult to get accurate captures and outputs. And at the time we went to online…it only did 1080i. Well, all of our tapes were 720p…so we had a problem. The tapes had to be converted to 1080 and then captured…and that was a HUGE expense. The nine-episode series went $200,000 over budget. That hurt. read more… […]